Traits and the darkness that comes before
Markus:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 03, 2008, 10:58:02 PM
Ah, damn! Marcus, I meant to ask, can you please give an actual play account of trollbabe - here or in a new thread is fine. I've been meaning to ask since you first brought it up in the prior thread. I think it'll have some important contrasts in it.
Hi Callan,
why, sure! I have a Trollbabe session scheduled for next wednesday at a local game club, so this is just perfect. Just a quick question however - what do you mean when you say that "It'll have some important contrasts in it"? Also, is there any specific thing I should take notes on during the game? (Oh well, it's not that important anyway, you can always ask later: I have a quite good memory).
m
LandonSuffered:
I wrote a huge post, then chucked most of it. Here’s the gist:
I think that writing a game text that expresses to anyone (hoi polloi and “brain damaged” gamer alike) how a game is played, how it’s intended to be played, and how NOT to play is a valid, reasonable, and possible goal of game design.
[regarding “how NOT to play:” this is valid instruction if playing a game in a particular fashion detracts from the inherent fun or design intention of the writer; at the same time, recognize that players may alter games with all sorts of house rules to better cater to their own brand of “fun;” as a designer, one can either let this go or provide “fair warning”]
While games with an excessive amount of fiddly rules or unusual concepts and nuances may require more specific writing, games can be designed to run smoothly with minimal speed bumps and without external demonstration or promotion.
Granted, I have never been actively observed by the designer of any of the games I’ve played, so it’s possible I am completely delusional as to whether or not I was playing in “the intended fashion.” But all the games I’ve played were simply “out of the box;” purhcased, read, and played by myself and my friends, and most of the time we enjoyed playing.
Some games failed to provide adequate instruction for full enjoyment, but this is a design flaw. Some games provided excellent instruction but were still not enjoyed because the mode of play was not to my personal taste (Steve Jackson’s Toon springs immediately to mind).
I don’t fault the “random scoop of people whose understanding of statistics is minimal and highly colored by misconceptions.” I DO fault assumptions made by designers that results in lack of specificity in writing including: readers’ knowledge of other RPGs,readers’ knowledge of source material/theme, readers’ experience gaming in a certain way, and similar social contracts/conventions within the readers’ own gaming group.
I understand striving for economy in writing. I understand writing to a particular audience (“wargamers,” established groups, whatever). I understand that if you’re an indie game designer with a day job, you probably don’t want to spend time “re-inventing the wheel.”
But games texts CAN be written to not only explain what the game is but HOW it’s to be played and what play is supposed to look like (and not look like)…and it can be written to speak to any shmuck off the street. Maybe designers need to get away from slapping the “what is role-playing” boiler plate page at the beginning of their text and get back to simply explaining the game as a game. Hell, drop the RP from the G if this is going to lead to laziness in design!
Ron Edwards:
That's great, Jonathan, and I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you. Nor can I imagine any more heroic effort than about a hundred to two hundred people bleeding their minds out trying to do exactly that. And no less, starting from certain knowledge that our every starting assumption and existing standard was probably inadequate. And furthermore, staying open to feedback and trying harder and harder, over and over again, based on that feedback.
That's funny. I just got mad.
It's weird to get so mad over something I agree with so much. It's clearly irrational. Defensive, maybe? Bitter? I hold up my own work,Spione, as the current pinnacle of my life in trying to write with exactly the clarity and inspiration that is being described in this thread. Everyone who's read it says it's the clearest instructional text they've ever seen; when they play it, they say, "Gee that's funny, it really works." I don't know how to offer that without screaming, "Have you even fucking read this?" and bashing either my or someone else's head into a wall.
And yet that's stupid. It was a good post. You are writing in good faith and, as I said, saying something I agree with. I'm not mad at you or "offended" or any bullshit like that. I don't know what to do with my own responses.
Callan, your question is well within my boundaries, no problem. You asked whether changing reader prejudices is a goal. No, it isn't. I wrote Sorcerer 100% in the spirit of the notion you described, that if someone didn't happen to be on my wavelength enough to get it, then fuck'em. I've tried to write better since then in all kinds of ways, including extending the range of what's acceptably on my wavelength, but I don't see how anyone could wave a wand and change the "way people are."
There is a goal, though, that perhaps makes my points sensible - that communicating about the text and its use is part of the process as well, in addition to reading it. That's not to say that the text can be left inadequate and the real communication be left to the follow-up, but rather acknowledging that the text alone can only go so far. Especially when teaching a social activity, or introducing ideas which require some reflection. Maybe this communication is with the game's author. Maybe it's with other people who like it. Maybe it's with the people who might like to play the game with you. Maybe it's as personal as simply reflecting upon the material after having read it and reacted once.
Here's my thing. I take a person who skims a book once, maybe tries what he thought he read in it, badly, and then dismisses the whole thing as "sucks," and I say, that guy doesn't rate a data point regarding the success of the book. It wasn't inadequate. It wasn't poorly-written. It wasn't incomplete. He sucks, and is not my problem as an author.
What I can do, for anyone who does want to get the maximum they can out of this book, is to be open to the communication I was talking about. I can even set up a community for such discussion, and provide ways to contribute one's own versions or experiences with the activity. So that's a real goal, in addition to the text itself.
Does that answer your question? Yes, a text needs to be sufficient, or what I simply call "good," and yet there is only so far any text can go. It has to be read by a person who wants to engage in learning it, and it has to land in a social group which is capable of trying in good faith. I think that's reasonable.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you want from this thread.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Fair enough. But I think in terms of teaching and whether the text is adequate/good enough, I think we should devote some talk about what critical method each of us as authors use to determine if a text is adequate/clear/complete. That's happened a bit in this thread for sure, which is great!
In terms of it though, my own critical method does not match. I think I know the sort of critical thinking you refer to by someone who "...skims a book once, maybe tries what he thought he read in it, badly, and then dismisses the whole thing as "sucks,"", which is to say, not much thinking at all. I understand with dismissing that sort of 'effort' and I would dismiss it as well! But in terms of my own method, because the only present critical review was (rightly) dismissed, whether the text was inadequate was neither proved, nor was it disproved. Whether it was poorly-written was neither proved, nor was it disproved. Whether it was incomplete was neither proved, nor was it disproved. In terms of my own method, there is absolutely no reason/proof as yet to claim the text wasn't inadequate, or that it wasn't poorly-written, or that it wasn't incomplete. With my method, we'd still be in a limbo there of neither proved nor disproved until a trusted critique is applied. Though it was proved that the 'he' in your example, does indeed suck! Which is a good thing! >:)
In terms of teaching, I think its important to talk about the critical method used by the teacher to determine if a text is adequate, clear and complete. And that's probably it for this thread, really. Wrap up posts are welcome and appreciated, of course :)
Hi Marcus,
I think remembering and writing about when other people or yourself were excited and/or happy, and what mechanics were happening, is one of the main things. In a new thread though, since I think this one is basically finished now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page